Article

2008-02-10 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Pappy 2008-02-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 "the main underlying purpose is to preserve infrastructure and keep jobs from going offshore"

Anybody ask the pilots about that?

Silly me - I thought the main purpose of any generation of jet fighters was to build a jet that, you know, can fight.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2008-02-10 00:43|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2008-02-10 00:43|| Front Page Top

#2 the Eurofighter is going to now cost some 10 billion ($15 billion) more

Forgot to add graft, did you?

Posted by Redneck Jim 2008-02-10 00:54|| 2008-02-10 00:54|| Front Page Top

#3 Well yes, but at the same time the Euros want to build at least some of their defense equipment, particularly the big ticket items, at home if they can. It does indeed preserve jobs, and just as importantly the industrial and knowledge base. We do it too, we're just a little more successful ...

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-02-10 00:56|| 2008-02-10 00:56|| Front Page Top

#4 Europidgeon was doomed from the start. If they focused on developing avionics alone, they'd have made some bucks. Nothing the euros can produce will compete with the sheer volume of the 35. Nor will their bomb loads, stealth, TCO, range, etc.

Posted by Vanc 2008-02-10 04:01|| 2008-02-10 04:01|| Front Page Top

#5 You need to keep building in sectors like aerospace or ship-building; once you stop it is catastrophically difficult to start again. The Japanese are still figuring out how to build large carriers despite having been excellent at the job at one time and not being short on finance or engineering.

BUT for Europeans to think Eurofighter is primarily about industry is correct for the wrong reasons: None of them ever plan to actually, you know, use these aircraft in combat. At most these are the equivalent of super-cars and their useless customers are always the same Arabs. The Swedes and the French are no different.

Posted by Excalibur 2008-02-10 07:20|| 2008-02-10 07:20|| Front Page Top

#6 You always get bogged down when you choose to engage in tranche warfare.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-02-10 07:43|| 2008-02-10 07:43|| Front Page Top

#7 I also suspect that the Eurofighter is a lemon, but that they refuse to admit it. For many of the same reasons, it is like the Airbus 380, designed by bureaucrats, not engineers. And until the 380 failed magnificently, they insisted that it was just as good as anything Boeing produced.

For example, while it was being created, the design called for an internal cannon in the fuselage. However, the plan was changed so that the cannon was omitted; yet the plane was balanced taking the cannon into account. So the final aircraft has to have a *dummy* cannon in it, just to equalize it.

Big time red flag.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-02-10 09:28|| 2008-02-10 09:28|| Front Page Top

#8 #6 - Easily the frontrunner for Worst Rantburg Pun of 2008. But the year's still young.

Posted by Matt 2008-02-10 09:29|| 2008-02-10 09:29|| Front Page Top

#9 Defense spending when you won't actually defend yourself is pork wrapped in a flag, nothing less.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-02-10 09:40|| 2008-02-10 09:40|| Front Page Top

#10 So the final aircraft has to have a *dummy* cannon in it, just to equalize it.

Not just a 'dummy' cannon, either - they found it was easiest to use the disarmed real cannon as the object's components had to weigh and be distributed just right. The estimated saving of using a disarmed cannon was something like £2m - the cost of the cannon/dummy cannon being £90m, IIRC. That's right.

I think a while ago they decided to reverse this decision. Genius!

Posted by Bulldog 2008-02-10 10:20|| 2008-02-10 10:20|| Front Page Top

#11 ... Correction: dummy cannon would be about £88m.

Posted by Bulldog 2008-02-10 10:21|| 2008-02-10 10:21|| Front Page Top

#12 Barb, the pilots are nto worried in the least. They know they will not be sent to battle in these aircraft because their nations lack the guts to do so.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-10 16:29|| 2008-02-10 16:29|| Front Page Top

#13 Point taken, OS.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2008-02-10 16:59|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/] 2008-02-10 16:59|| Front Page Top

#14 It does what it is designed to do. It's an interceptor and dogfighter against non stealth aircraft. It's an aircraft that lost it's mission 18 years ago.

Posted by ed 2008-02-10 17:41|| 2008-02-10 17:41|| Front Page Top

#15 The Eurofighter has been shown to only be par in certain aspects with the well-established, long running US F16 andor F18, and despire any new innovations to original specs.

Ironically, IIRC it was DEFENSETECH.org or DEFENSEDAILY a few months ago > the US F20 TIGERSHARK was reportedly being considered for revamp + upgrade as per ME + Asian customers lieu of the Eurofighter???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-02-10 18:27|| 2008-02-10 18:27|| Front Page Top

#16 I have heard from pilots that the Eurofighter is a hanger queen and a basic piece of shit. The Germans would prefer the Mig-29 over the Eurofighter.

Ouch....

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-02-10 18:41|| 2008-02-10 18:41|| Front Page Top

#17 Give them the choice of an F-18 E/F and they'd jump at it probably

Posted by OldSpook 2008-02-10 22:14|| 2008-02-10 22:14|| Front Page Top

23:55 Xenophon
23:54 M. Murcek
23:49 KBK
23:48 Helmuth, Speaking for Spusoling6019
23:40 trailing wife
23:35 KBK
23:34 M. Murcek
23:34 trailing wife
23:25 marc
23:24 M. Murcek
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:21 Throger Thains8048
23:19 3dc
23:16 Redneck Jim
23:15 JosephMendiola
23:13 Redneck Jim
23:10 Kojo Omeans9930
23:09 JosephMendiola
23:08 trailing wife
23:07 JosephMendiola
23:07 marc
23:07 M. Murcek
23:04 Redneck Jim
23:03 JosephMendiola